Sponsorship breakdown - protecting both sides?

[Coralsocks]

Hi there,

In a nut shell I sponsored someone and we broke up. I was fiercely emotionally abused...Borderline physically.. police were never involved so there was no documentationi in that respect. There was no question I had to leave by the end.

I still have about a year and a half left of my agreement but have been made aware that he is seeking social assistance from the government which will mean I will have to foot this bill.

How can I protect myself from this when I had to leave the relationship due to abuse?

 

[sarah2012]

Get some sort of police/cic advice?
The usual advice online seems to be that the sponsored person cannot obtain assistance where: - Exemptions from Pursuing Sponsorship Support: The sponsorship has been determined broken down due to family violence verified by a third party.

some more info: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/media/backgrounders/2012/2012-10-26a.asp

 

[scylla]

some more info: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/media/backgrounders/2012/2012-10-26a.asp

This link does not apply to Coralsocks. The rules covered in this link were only very recently implemented.

Coralsocks - Unfortunately you are stuck with the support obligation for another year and a half. You signed an agreement when you submitted the sponsorship paperwork and there's nothing you can do to lift this obligation early. If he does in fact seek social assistance during the next year and a half you will be responsible for paying this money back to the government. Very sorry you're going through this.

 

[scos]

Get some sort of police/cic advice?
The usual advice online seems to be that the sponsored person cannot obtain assistance where: - Exemptions from Pursuing Sponsorship Support: The sponsorship has been determined broken down due to family violence verified by a third party.

some more info: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/media/backgrounders/2012/2012-10-26a.asp

That is under the new law. This case is at least 1.5 years old so it is under the old law. That doesn't apply.

If he is going to go on government assistance there is nothing you can do. So in that case all you can do is pay the government what they say you owe but give him nothing directly.

 

[ambers]

Ugggggh reading this made me so upset I just wanted to say that I am terribly sorry that you are going through this. I can only imagine how you must be feeling right now!! This whole part of it scares me too (as a sponsor) but not in part for my husband (who I completely trust and have no fear of this kind of nightmare happening with....but honestly y'never know I suppose) but just in general. I think that there needs to be SOME degree of protection for sponsors, especially in cases such as this.

Praying that things turn out ok for you!!

 

[gsize]

this worries me also (and it should all sponsors)

my lawyer advised me to do a 'Cohabitation Agreement" He says he will include a statement that will protect me if my relationship goes south. Basically stating, my partner will be responsible to pay me back should he go on welfare.

We live in times where it is most important to protect ourselves. :


http://www.thestar.com/news/immigration/2013/02/07/marriage_to_cuban_leaves_brampton_bride_brokenhearted_and_broke.html

 

[zardoz]

I don't suppose it is possible for the sponsor to sue the sponsored person in the civil courts for any losses incurred?

Z

 

[canadianwoman]

Hi there,

In a nut shell I sponsored someone and we broke up. I was fiercely emotionally abused...Borderline physically.. police were never involved so there was no documentationi in that respect. There was no question I had to leave by the end.

I still have about a year and a half left of my agreement but have been made aware that he is seeking social assistance from the government which will mean I will have to foot this bill.

How can I protect myself from this when I had to leave the relationship due to abuse?

I'm very sorry about your situation.
There is not much you can do. Do not pay him anything directly - let him go on welfare and try to live off of that. He may tire of it quickly and decide to get a job.
You can try to discreetly keep tabs on him and see what he is doing. People can't just go on welfare because they want to - they have to prove they need it, and they have to prove they are looking for work. So if you find out he is collecting welfare but also working under the table somewhere, report him. You won't have to give your name, just the details of where he is working. Or if you know he is not looking for work, but is claiming he is, report that. Or if you know he has some money, but has not reported that to the welfare authorities, tell them. He is supposed to use up his own money first before going on welfare.

You probably could sue him, but only if you had an agreement ahead of time where he agrees to not go on welfare or something like that. If he doesn't have much money, though, suing him won't help.

 

[caitij]

Im new to all of this but im positive that the sponsered person has to live with the sponser for a minimum of 2 years to legally be sponsered.....cant you get him kicked out of the country?

 

[QuebecOkie]

That's a recent change to the rules. The two-year thing went into effect on October 25, 2012.

 

[amikety]

this worries me also (and it should all sponsors)

my lawyer advised me to do a 'Cohabitation Agreement" He says he will include a statement that will protect me if my relationship goes south. Basically stating, my partner will be responsible to pay me back should he go on welfare.

We live in times where it is most important to protect ourselves. :


http://www.thestar.com/news/immigration/2013/02/07/marriage_to_cuban_leaves_brampton_bride_brokenhearted_and_broke.html

I'm curious about the agreement - cohabitation or prenup - that indicates sponsors must be repaid for welfare by the applicant. By chance, did your lawyer say this will be upheld in court or has been upheld in court previously? My curiousity is because I have mentioned it to people before, but I don't know if it would stand up in the courtroom. An applicant can argue language skills or fears of not being sponsored.

 

[gsize]

I'm curious about the agreement - cohabitation or prenup - that indicates sponsors must be repaid for welfare by the applicant. By chance, did your lawyer say this will be upheld in court or has been upheld in court previously? My curiousity is because I have mentioned it to people before, but I don't know if it would stand up in the courtroom. An applicant can argue language skills or fears of not being sponsored.

it would need to be translated into applicants language. You then have a clause that applicant is encouraged to get their own legal advice. Needs to be witnessed.

Also people need to know marriage vs common law are not the same (property rights) in Ontario (dont know about other provinces)

Lawyer advised me that everything can be bascially rolled into one document that will cover me for pretty much everything should my relationship go south. To tell you the truth, I was a little confused. I didnt want to take up more time with him as he did this as a consultation.

I am meeting again next week and will report back !
8)

 

[figtoria]

it would need to be translated into applicants language. You then have a clause that applicant is encouraged to get their own legal advice. Needs to be witnessed.

We did a pre-nup (2nd marriage for both - optimistic, but not foolish! ).

My husband >had< to get his own lawyer to review the agreement. No lawyer should handle both ends of that kind of contract.

 

[canadianwoman]

Just a word of advice: I would not put any pre-nup, or any agreement where the applicant agrees to pay back any welfare if the marriage fails, into the application package for the PR. I recently read an appeal case where they did include their pre-nup. I think the (male) sponsor was trying to prove that the woman was not marrying him for his money, and that therefore this was evidence the marriage was genuine. But the judge took it to mean the Canadian was doing all he could to ensure that if the marriage failed, he wouldn't have to pay anything. The judge's reasoning was that in a genuine marriage, financial affairs are supposed to be shared; the sponsor's efforts to make sure their financial affairs were not shared made the marriage look fake. They lost the appeal.

 

[truesmile]

That's a very interesting angle, I see his (the judge) point.